release: gate August 1 content candidates

2026-07-29 01:36:07 +08:00
parent 6a1f672892
commit 8764031d4a
8 changed files with 625 additions and 2 deletions
@@ -96,6 +96,7 @@ import java.util.Comparator;
 import java.util.LinkedHashMap;
 import java.util.LinkedHashSet;
 import java.util.List;
+import java.util.Locale;
 import java.util.Map;
 import java.util.Objects;
 import java.util.Optional;
@@ -123,6 +124,10 @@ public class AihrPracticeSeedService {
    private static final List<String> GROWTH_LEVELS = List.of("初级", "中级", "高级");
    private static final Set<String> SCENARIO_REVIEW_STATUSES = Set.of("草稿", "待业务审核", "已发布", "已下线");
    private static final Set<String> SCENARIO_RISK_LEVELS = Set.of("待评估", "常规", "高风险");
+    private static final List<String> PUBLICATION_PLACEHOLDER_MARKERS = List.of(
+        "待补", "待提供", "待完善", "待定", "占位内容", "占位文本", "占位符", "placeholder", "示例来源", "示例内容",
+        "待确认", "todo", "tbd"
+    );
    private static final List<String> MANDATORY_DUAL_REVIEW_TERMS = List.of(
        "事故", "消防", "火灾", "起火", "爆炸", "燃气", "漏电", "触电", "带电",
        "高空", "困人", "受伤", "人身伤害", "摔倒", "暴力", "肢体冲突",
@@ -7808,10 +7813,45 @@ public class AihrPracticeSeedService {
            || scenario.rounds() == null || scenario.rounds().size() < 2) {
            throw new ServiceException("发布前请补齐业务来源/SOP、服务红线、训练目标、成功标准和至少两轮对练");
        }
+        if (containsPublicationPlaceholder(
+            scenario.name(), scenario.scenarioType(), scenario.customerPersona(), scenario.openingText(),
+            scenario.explicitNeed(), scenario.hiddenNeed(), scenario.irritants(), scenario.delights(),
+            scenario.sopRefs(), scenario.successCriteria(), scenario.strategy(), scenario.goal(),
+            scenario.collaborationPositions(), scenario.curriculumVersion()
+        )) {
+            throw new ServiceException("发布前请移除待补、待确认或示例占位内容");
+        }
+        if (scenario.rounds().stream().anyMatch(round -> round == null
+            || isBlank(round.customer()) || isBlank(round.coachHint())
+            || containsPublicationPlaceholder(round.customer(), round.coachHint()))) {
+            throw new ServiceException("发布前请补齐每轮业主话术和教练提示，并移除占位内容");
+        }
        if (scenario.rubric() == null || scenario.rubric().dimensions() == null
            || scenario.rubric().dimensions().size() != RUBRIC_DIMENSION_CODES.size()) {
            throw new ServiceException("发布前请配置完整的五维评分规则");
        }
+        if (scenario.rubric().dimensions().stream().anyMatch(dimension -> dimension == null
+            || isBlank(dimension.name()) || isBlank(dimension.description())
+            || containsPublicationPlaceholder(dimension.name(), dimension.description()))) {
+            throw new ServiceException("发布前请补齐五维评分说明，并移除占位内容");
+        }
+        validateRubricDimensions(scenario.rubric().dimensions());
+    }
+
+    static boolean containsPublicationPlaceholder(String... values) {
+        if (values == null) {
+            return false;
+        }
+        for (String value : values) {
+            if (value == null || value.isBlank()) {
+                continue;
+            }
+            String normalized = value.trim().toLowerCase(Locale.ROOT);
+            if (PUBLICATION_PLACEHOLDER_MARKERS.stream().anyMatch(normalized::contains)) {
+                return true;
+            }
+        }
+        return false;
    }

    private boolean isKnownCurriculumCapability(String position, String growthLevel, String competencyCode) {
@@ -533,6 +533,8 @@ public class AihrPracticeSeedServiceTest {
        assertTrue(source.contains("高风险场景需要另一位不同审核人复核"));
        assertTrue(source.contains("isBlank(scenario.irritants())"));
        assertTrue(source.contains("业务来源/SOP、服务红线"));
+        assertTrue(source.contains("containsPublicationPlaceholder"));
+        assertTrue(source.contains("发布前请移除待补、待确认或示例占位内容"));
        assertTrue(source.contains("growth_level"));
        assertTrue(source.contains("competency_code"));
        assertTrue(source.contains("risk_level"));
@@ -612,6 +614,31 @@ public class AihrPracticeSeedServiceTest {
        assertTrue(jdbcTemplate.updateSql.isEmpty());
    }

+    @Test
+    public void scenarioCannotPublishWithPlaceholderContent() throws Exception {
+        HighRiskScenarioJdbcTemplate jdbcTemplate = new HighRiskScenarioJdbcTemplate("常规");
+        jdbcTemplate.sopRefs = "待补公司收费制度";
+        AihrPracticeSeedService service = new AihrPracticeSeedService(new ObjectMapper(), jdbcTemplate, null, null);
+        markScenarioTableReady(service);
+
+        ServiceException error = assertThrows(ServiceException.class, () -> service.updateScenarioReviewStatus(
+            "placeholder-scene", new ScenarioReviewStatusRequest("已发布"), 101L, "reviewer-a"));
+
+        assertEquals("发布前请移除待补、待确认或示例占位内容", error.getMessage());
+        assertTrue(jdbcTemplate.updateSql.isEmpty());
+    }
+
+    @Test
+    public void publicationPlaceholderDetectionDoesNotRejectOrdinaryConfirmationLanguage() {
+        assertTrue(AihrPracticeSeedService.containsPublicationPlaceholder("待补正式制度"));
+        assertTrue(AihrPracticeSeedService.containsPublicationPlaceholder("收费依据（待确认）"));
+        assertTrue(AihrPracticeSeedService.containsPublicationPlaceholder("收费依据待确认"));
+        assertTrue(AihrPracticeSeedService.containsPublicationPlaceholder("TBD"));
+        assertFalse(AihrPracticeSeedService.containsPublicationPlaceholder("无依据时明确告知无法确认"));
+        assertFalse(AihrPracticeSeedService.containsPublicationPlaceholder("未经核实不得承诺减免"));
+        assertFalse(AihrPracticeSeedService.containsPublicationPlaceholder("车辆被占位后如何协调"));
+    }
+
    @Test
    public void employeeScenarioReadDoesNotExposeContentReviewerAudit() throws Exception {
        HighRiskScenarioJdbcTemplate jdbcTemplate = new HighRiskScenarioJdbcTemplate("高风险");
@@ -2974,6 +3001,7 @@ public class AihrPracticeSeedServiceTest {
        private Long reviewerUserId;
        private String secondReviewer = "";
        private Long secondReviewerUserId;
+        private String sopRefs = "收费管理SOP v1";
        private String updateSql = "";

        private HighRiskScenarioJdbcTemplate(String riskLevel) {
@@ -3031,7 +3059,7 @@ public class AihrPracticeSeedServiceTest {
                    row.put("hidden_need", "得到清晰答复");
                    row.put("irritants", "未经核实承诺减免");
                    row.put("delights", "给出责任人和反馈节点");
-                    row.put("sop_refs", "收费管理SOP v1");
+                    row.put("sop_refs", sopRefs);
                    row.put("success_criteria", "解释依据并完成记录");
                    row.put("strategy", "先核实再答复");
                    row.put("goal", "训练收费争议沟通");
@@ -23,6 +23,7 @@
 | [MOBILE_APP_DEVICE_ACCEPTANCE.md](MOBILE_APP_DEVICE_ACCEPTANCE.md) | Android/iOS 自定义基座或签名包的真机验收清单 |
 | [帮道8月1日Android内测Go-No-Go-20260728.md](帮道8月1日Android内测Go-No-Go-20260728.md) | 更新至 2026-07-29 的当前候选 APK、版本冻结、生产依赖、真机与内容门禁 Go/No-Go 结论 |
 | [生活顾问调研转化清单-20260728.md](生活顾问调研转化清单-20260728.md) | 将仓库外原始访谈脱敏映射为待业务审核的 SOP、知识、题目和对练候选池 |
+| [帮道8月1日生活顾问内容候选审核包-20260729.md](帮道8月1日生活顾问内容候选审核包-20260729.md) | 5 个脱敏场景与 30 道政策问题的待审候选包；明确 0 个正式场景、0 道正式来源标准答案及业务签认路径 |
 | [FIGMA_DESIGN_INVENTORY.md](FIGMA_DESIGN_INVENTORY.md) | Figma 页面节点索引、设计批次范围、取消项和全文件一致性审计结果 |
 | [FIGMA_DESIGN_SYSTEM_GUIDE.md](FIGMA_DESIGN_SYSTEM_GUIDE.md) | 员工端通用视觉元素、业务元素、状态映射和 LLM 组页规则 |
 | [FIGMA_IMPLEMENTATION_MATRIX.md](FIGMA_IMPLEMENTATION_MATRIX.md) | 70 张正式画板与代码/线上实现状态、二期边界和剩余动作 |
@@ -0,0 +1,325 @@
+{
+  "schemaVersion": "1.0",
+  "contentVersion": "aug1-life-advisor-candidate-v0.1",
+  "generatedDate": "2026-07-29",
+  "candidateStatus": "PENDING_BUSINESS_REVIEW",
+  "publishable": false,
+  "notice": "本文件仅是脱敏候选审核材料，不是正式制度、标准答案或可发布训练内容。",
+  "sourceRegistry": [
+    {
+      "sourceId": "LC-INT-001",
+      "description": "仓库外保存的第 1 份生活顾问访谈，仅引用脱敏业务主题和行号",
+      "authority": "FIELD_INTERVIEW",
+      "formalPolicy": false
+    },
+    {
+      "sourceId": "AUG1-PLAN",
+      "description": "帮道 8 月 1 日 Android 安装包测试版任务计划",
+      "authority": "PROJECT_PLAN",
+      "formalPolicy": false
+    }
+  ],
+  "scenarios": [
+    {
+      "candidateId": "LC-AUG1-SC-001",
+      "candidateStatus": "PENDING_BUSINESS_REVIEW",
+      "publishable": false,
+      "sourceRefs": ["AUG1-PLAN:L206-L214", "LC-INT-001:L25-L26"],
+      "sourceSufficiency": "NEEDS_FORMAL_POLICY",
+      "proposedRiskLevel": "常规",
+      "requiredReviewers": ["客服负责人", "品质负责人"],
+      "reviewChecklist": ["补充报事报修受理制度及版本", "确认定位信息最小必要范围", "确认升级路径和反馈节点", "审核合成话术与评分标准"],
+      "scenarioDraft": {
+        "id": "lc-location-refusal-intake",
+        "name": "住户拒绝提供定位信息时的报修受理",
+        "position": "生活顾问",
+        "scenarioType": "报事报修受理",
+        "projectType": "住宅",
+        "growthLevel": "初级",
+        "competencyCode": "LG-REPAIR-INTAKE",
+        "collaborationPositions": "客服,保修",
+        "riskLevel": "待评估",
+        "curriculumVersion": "住宅五岗-v1",
+        "difficulty": 2,
+        "customerPersona": "担心隐私、不愿提供精确位置但希望尽快处理的住户",
+        "openingText": "我只想报修，不想在电话里说具体住址，你们先安排人来看。",
+        "explicitNeed": "完成报修并获得后续处理安排",
+        "hiddenNeed": "确认定位信息用途、减少不必要的信息暴露",
+        "irritants": "猜测房号、追问无关个人信息、以拒绝受理施压、承诺未经确认的到场时间",
+        "delights": "说明最小必要信息及用途，提供可选确认方式并给出受理编号和反馈节点",
+        "sopRefs": "待补：正式报事报修受理制度、隐私告知要求及有效版本",
+        "successCriteria": "说明必要信息用途；不索取无关隐私；给出替代确认方式；完成受理、责任转交和可核验反馈节点",
+        "strategy": "先承接诉求和隐私顾虑，再解释最小必要信息，提供受控替代方式并完成闭环",
+        "goal": "训练生活顾问在住户拒绝提供定位信息时兼顾隐私边界和报修闭环",
+        "enabled": false,
+        "rounds": [
+          {"customer": "为什么一定要说到这么细？你们系统里不是能查到吗？", "coachHint": "解释本次受理所需信息及用途，不声称能读取未授权资料，并提供住户可接受的确认方式。", "emotion": 70, "trust": 58},
+          {"customer": "如果我只提供公共区域位置，你们还能不能先登记？", "coachHint": "区分登记、派工和入户的必要信息，明确当前能完成的动作、责任人及下一次反馈节点。", "emotion": 58, "trust": 70}
+        ]
+      },
+      "rubricDraft": {
+        "code": "rubric-lc-location-refusal-intake",
+        "scenarioCode": "lc-location-refusal-intake",
+        "name": "拒绝定位信息受理五维评分",
+        "version": "candidate-v0.1",
+        "enabled": false,
+        "description": "仅供业务审核，正式制度和边界确认后方可启用。",
+        "dimensions": [
+          {"code": "task_completion", "name": "任务完成度", "weight": 0.4, "description": "完成必要信息说明、替代确认、受理记录和后续节点四项动作。"},
+          {"code": "standardization", "name": "话术规范性", "weight": 0.25, "description": "不猜测身份位置，不索取无关隐私，不虚构系统权限或处理时限。"},
+          {"code": "emotion", "name": "情绪管理能力", "weight": 0.2, "description": "承接隐私顾虑，保持中性表达，不以拒绝受理激化对话。"},
+          {"code": "response_timeliness", "name": "响应时效", "weight": 0.1, "description": "在当前回合明确受理状态、责任转交和下一次可核验反馈节点。"},
+          {"code": "marketing", "name": "增值转化潜力", "weight": 0.05, "description": "仅在解决报修主诉后介绍经批准的便民入口，不进行无依据推介。"}
+        ]
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "candidateId": "LC-AUG1-SC-002",
+      "candidateStatus": "PENDING_BUSINESS_REVIEW",
+      "publishable": false,
+      "sourceRefs": ["AUG1-PLAN:L206-L214", "LC-INT-001:L31-L40"],
+      "sourceSufficiency": "NEEDS_FORMAL_POLICY",
+      "proposedRiskLevel": "高风险",
+      "requiredReviewers": ["客服负责人", "财务负责人", "法务审核人"],
+      "reviewChecklist": ["补充收费依据和适用项目", "冻结优惠与分期审批权限", "确认争议登记及升级路径", "两名不同审核人复核"],
+      "scenarioDraft": {
+        "id": "lc-fee-dispute-explanation",
+        "name": "物业费明细与服务争议沟通",
+        "position": "生活顾问",
+        "scenarioType": "收费争议",
+        "projectType": "住宅",
+        "growthLevel": "中级",
+        "competencyCode": "LG-COMPLAINT-FEE-PARKING",
+        "collaborationPositions": "客服,财务",
+        "riskLevel": "待评估",
+        "curriculumVersion": "住宅五岗-v1",
+        "difficulty": 3,
+        "customerPersona": "质疑费用明细并把服务问题与缴费绑定的住户",
+        "openingText": "服务没做好，费用明细也说不清楚，我为什么要缴？",
+        "explicitNeed": "核对费用构成并处理服务争议",
+        "hiddenNeed": "获得可追溯的解释、整改责任人和复核入口",
+        "irritants": "争辩对错、擅自承诺减免或折扣、模糊收费依据、把整改作为缴费交换条件",
+        "delights": "区分费用核对与服务整改，提供正式依据、复核入口、责任人和反馈节点",
+        "sopRefs": "待补：正式收费制度、账单口径、优惠分期审批制度及有效版本",
+        "successCriteria": "准确复述争议；区分费用复核和服务整改；不越权承诺；完成双线记录并给出正式反馈节点",
+        "strategy": "先核对争议点，再将费用复核和服务整改拆分为两条可追踪链路",
+        "goal": "训练生活顾问在收费争议中说明依据、守住授权并完成双线闭环",
+        "enabled": false,
+        "rounds": [
+          {"customer": "你先告诉我能减多少，不然别谈后面的事。", "coachHint": "不承诺减免，说明本人权限边界，同时分别登记费用复核和服务整改事项。", "emotion": 80, "trust": 48},
+          {"customer": "你说登记了，我怎么知道不是又拖着不处理？", "coachHint": "提供两条事项的责任归属、记录凭证和下一次反馈节点，不保证未经确认的结果。", "emotion": 68, "trust": 63}
+        ]
+      },
+      "rubricDraft": {
+        "code": "rubric-lc-fee-dispute-explanation",
+        "scenarioCode": "lc-fee-dispute-explanation",
+        "name": "收费争议五维评分",
+        "version": "candidate-v0.1",
+        "enabled": false,
+        "description": "仅供业务审核，收费制度、权限和复核路径确认后方可启用。",
+        "dimensions": [
+          {"code": "task_completion", "name": "任务完成度", "weight": 0.4, "description": "完成争议复述、费用复核登记、整改登记及双线反馈节点。"},
+          {"code": "standardization", "name": "话术规范性", "weight": 0.25, "description": "引用经审核依据，不擅自承诺减免、折扣、分期或争议结果。"},
+          {"code": "emotion", "name": "情绪管理能力", "weight": 0.2, "description": "先承接服务不满，不争辩、不催压，持续区分事实与待复核事项。"},
+          {"code": "response_timeliness", "name": "响应时效", "weight": 0.1, "description": "当场明确两条链路的当前状态、责任归属和下一次反馈节点。"},
+          {"code": "marketing", "name": "增值转化潜力", "weight": 0.05, "description": "主诉未闭环前不营销；闭环后仅介绍经批准且与需求相关的服务。"}
+        ]
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "candidateId": "LC-AUG1-SC-003",
+      "candidateStatus": "PENDING_BUSINESS_REVIEW",
+      "publishable": false,
+      "sourceRefs": ["AUG1-PLAN:L206-L214", "LC-INT-001:L25-L26"],
+      "sourceSufficiency": "NEEDS_FORMAL_POLICY",
+      "proposedRiskLevel": "常规",
+      "requiredReviewers": ["工程负责人", "客服负责人"],
+      "reviewChecklist": ["补充维修延期和转办制度", "确认延期原因可披露范围", "确认升级层级和回访节点", "审核评分证据口径"],
+      "scenarioDraft": {
+        "id": "lc-repair-delay-followup",
+        "name": "维修延期后的解释与升级跟进",
+        "position": "生活顾问",
+        "scenarioType": "维修延期",
+        "projectType": "住宅",
+        "growthLevel": "中级",
+        "competencyCode": "LG-CROSS-TEAM-FOLLOWUP",
+        "collaborationPositions": "保修,客服",
+        "riskLevel": "待评估",
+        "curriculumVersion": "住宅五岗-v1",
+        "difficulty": 3,
+        "customerPersona": "多次等待后质疑物业推诿的住户",
+        "openingText": "前几次都说会处理，现在还是没动静，你们到底谁负责？",
+        "explicitNeed": "获知延期原因、责任人和新的处理节点",
+        "hiddenNeed": "确认物业没有遗忘，并能持续看到进展",
+        "irritants": "重复空泛道歉、归咎其他部门、虚构完工时间、无记录地口头转交",
+        "delights": "核对历史记录，说明已确认事实，明确升级责任人、替代安排和回访节点",
+        "sopRefs": "待补：正式维修转办、延期告知、升级和回访制度及有效版本",
+        "successCriteria": "核对历史；说明已确认的延期原因；不甩锅或虚假承诺；完成升级转交并给出可追踪节点",
+        "strategy": "先承认体验落差，核对事实，再以责任人、升级动作和反馈节点恢复可预期性",
+        "goal": "训练生活顾问处理维修延期时的跨部门跟进与服务恢复",
+        "enabled": false,
+        "rounds": [
+          {"customer": "你别再让我等了，今天到底能不能修好？", "coachHint": "只说明已核实状态，不承诺未知完工时间；给出当前升级动作和下一次反馈节点。", "emotion": 78, "trust": 45},
+          {"customer": "之前也有人说会回我，最后还是没有消息。", "coachHint": "说明本次记录凭证、明确责任人和回访方式，并给出未按节点反馈时的升级入口。", "emotion": 67, "trust": 61}
+        ]
+      },
+      "rubricDraft": {
+        "code": "rubric-lc-repair-delay-followup",
+        "scenarioCode": "lc-repair-delay-followup",
+        "name": "维修延期五维评分",
+        "version": "candidate-v0.1",
+        "enabled": false,
+        "description": "仅供业务审核，正式转办和延期制度确认后方可启用。",
+        "dimensions": [
+          {"code": "task_completion", "name": "任务完成度", "weight": 0.4, "description": "完成历史核对、现状说明、升级转交、反馈节点和回访安排。"},
+          {"code": "standardization", "name": "话术规范性", "weight": 0.25, "description": "区分已确认事实与未知结果，不甩锅、不虚构完工时间。"},
+          {"code": "emotion", "name": "情绪管理能力", "weight": 0.2, "description": "承认多次等待造成的体验落差，以行动信息替代重复空泛道歉。"},
+          {"code": "response_timeliness", "name": "响应时效", "weight": 0.1, "description": "明确本次升级动作、责任人及下一次可核验反馈节点。"},
+          {"code": "marketing", "name": "增值转化潜力", "weight": 0.05, "description": "维修主诉未闭环前不营销，避免以增值服务转移问题。"}
+        ]
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "candidateId": "LC-AUG1-SC-004",
+      "candidateStatus": "PENDING_BUSINESS_REVIEW",
+      "publishable": false,
+      "sourceRefs": ["AUG1-PLAN:L206-L214", "LC-INT-001:L27-L28"],
+      "sourceSufficiency": "NEEDS_FORMAL_POLICY",
+      "proposedRiskLevel": "高风险",
+      "requiredReviewers": ["客服负责人", "秩序负责人", "法务审核人"],
+      "reviewChecklist": ["补充投诉分级和现场安全制度", "确认报警及升级边界", "确认记录与隐私要求", "两名不同审核人复核"],
+      "scenarioDraft": {
+        "id": "lc-emotional-parking-complaint",
+        "name": "情绪化停车冲突投诉的降级处理",
+        "position": "生活顾问",
+        "scenarioType": "情绪化投诉",
+        "projectType": "住宅",
+        "growthLevel": "高级",
+        "competencyCode": "LG-GROUP-RISK",
+        "collaborationPositions": "保安,客服",
+        "riskLevel": "待评估",
+        "curriculumVersion": "住宅五岗-v1",
+        "difficulty": 4,
+        "customerPersona": "因停车冲突情绪激动并要求立即处理的住户",
+        "openingText": "对方一直堵着我的车，你们再不管我就自己去找他！",
+        "explicitNeed": "尽快解除车辆受阻并获得处理反馈",
+        "hiddenNeed": "确认自身安全和权益受到重视",
+        "irritants": "评价双方对错、透露对方个人信息、鼓励当面对质、承诺处罚结果、忽视现场安全",
+        "delights": "先确认人身安全和现场风险，记录事实，启动经授权协同并持续反馈",
+        "sopRefs": "待补：正式停车管理、冲突处置、报警升级和个人信息保护制度及有效版本",
+        "successCriteria": "先做安全确认；不泄露信息或煽动对质；记录可核实事实；按权限升级并给出持续反馈节点",
+        "strategy": "安全优先，先降级情绪和阻止对质，再按正式边界协调秩序与客服",
+        "goal": "训练生活顾问面对高情绪停车冲突时进行安全确认、事实记录和合规升级",
+        "enabled": false,
+        "rounds": [
+          {"customer": "把对方电话给我，我自己跟他说。", "coachHint": "拒绝泄露个人信息，承接紧迫感，确认当前安全并说明可执行的合规协调动作。", "emotion": 88, "trust": 42},
+          {"customer": "如果他还不来，我就去敲门，你们别拦我。", "coachHint": "明确不鼓励直接冲突，按风险等级启动现场协同或升级，并保持住户可获得的反馈。", "emotion": 82, "trust": 53}
+        ]
+      },
+      "rubricDraft": {
+        "code": "rubric-lc-emotional-parking-complaint",
+        "scenarioCode": "lc-emotional-parking-complaint",
+        "name": "高情绪停车投诉五维评分",
+        "version": "candidate-v0.1",
+        "enabled": false,
+        "description": "仅供业务审核，现场安全、隐私和升级制度确认后方可启用。",
+        "dimensions": [
+          {"code": "task_completion", "name": "任务完成度", "weight": 0.4, "description": "完成安全确认、事实记录、合规协同、升级判断和持续反馈。"},
+          {"code": "standardization", "name": "话术规范性", "weight": 0.25, "description": "不泄露个人信息、不评价未核实责任、不承诺处罚或鼓励对质。"},
+          {"code": "emotion", "name": "情绪管理能力", "weight": 0.2, "description": "先降级冲突和确认安全，以短句清晰引导住户避免直接对抗。"},
+          {"code": "response_timeliness", "name": "响应时效", "weight": 0.1, "description": "在当前回合明确已经启动的协同动作和下一次反馈节点。"},
+          {"code": "marketing", "name": "增值转化潜力", "weight": 0.05, "description": "冲突处理中不营销，不以增值服务替代安全处置。"}
+        ]
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "candidateId": "LC-AUG1-SC-005",
+      "candidateStatus": "PENDING_BUSINESS_REVIEW",
+      "publishable": false,
+      "sourceRefs": ["AUG1-PLAN:L206-L214", "LC-INT-001:L31-L40"],
+      "sourceSufficiency": "NEEDS_FORMAL_POLICY",
+      "proposedRiskLevel": "高风险",
+      "requiredReviewers": ["客服负责人", "财务负责人", "品质负责人"],
+      "reviewChecklist": ["补充收费与服务整改制度", "确认两条链路责任归属", "确认优惠分期权限", "两名不同审核人复核"],
+      "scenarioDraft": {
+        "id": "lc-fee-and-remediation-parallel",
+        "name": "收费沟通与服务整改并行闭环",
+        "position": "生活顾问",
+        "scenarioType": "收费与整改并行",
+        "projectType": "住宅",
+        "growthLevel": "高级",
+        "competencyCode": "LG-SERVICE-RECOVERY",
+        "collaborationPositions": "客服,财务,保修",
+        "riskLevel": "待评估",
+        "curriculumVersion": "住宅五岗-v1",
+        "difficulty": 4,
+        "customerPersona": "长期服务不满、拒绝缴费并要求先整改的住户",
+        "openingText": "问题拖了这么久，先把服务整改好，再来谈费用。",
+        "explicitNeed": "推动服务问题整改并重新核对费用事项",
+        "hiddenNeed": "看到持续改进而不是一次性催缴",
+        "irritants": "只催缴不记录整改、用减免交换撤诉、把缴费作为受理前提、混淆两条事项状态",
+        "delights": "将收费核对与服务整改并行建档，分别给责任人、证据和反馈节点",
+        "sopRefs": "待补：正式收费、服务整改、客诉升级和分期审批制度及有效版本",
+        "successCriteria": "不把两条事项互设前提；分别登记事实、责任人和节点；不越权承诺；持续同步两条链路状态",
+        "strategy": "承认服务问题，拆分两条链路并行推进，用可核验进展恢复信任",
+        "goal": "训练生活顾问在长期争议中并行推进费用核对和服务整改",
+        "enabled": false,
+        "rounds": [
+          {"customer": "你们先给我一个减免方案，我才愿意配合后面的核对。", "coachHint": "不越权承诺减免，也不以缴费为整改前提；分别说明两条链路当前可执行的动作。", "emotion": 78, "trust": 44},
+          {"customer": "以前每次都说整改，过一阵又没消息了。", "coachHint": "给出整改记录、责任人和回访机制，同时说明费用复核的独立凭证与反馈节点。", "emotion": 68, "trust": 60}
+        ]
+      },
+      "rubricDraft": {
+        "code": "rubric-lc-fee-and-remediation-parallel",
+        "scenarioCode": "lc-fee-and-remediation-parallel",
+        "name": "收费与整改并行五维评分",
+        "version": "candidate-v0.1",
+        "enabled": false,
+        "description": "仅供业务审核，两条正式流程和授权边界确认后方可启用。",
+        "dimensions": [
+          {"code": "task_completion", "name": "任务完成度", "weight": 0.4, "description": "分别完成费用核对与整改建档、责任分配、反馈节点和持续回访。"},
+          {"code": "standardization", "name": "话术规范性", "weight": 0.25, "description": "不互设办理前提，不越权承诺减免、分期、赔偿或整改结果。"},
+          {"code": "emotion", "name": "情绪管理能力", "weight": 0.2, "description": "承接长期不满，以可核验行动替代催压、争辩或交换条件。"},
+          {"code": "response_timeliness", "name": "响应时效", "weight": 0.1, "description": "分别明确两条链路的当前状态和下一次反馈节点。"},
+          {"code": "marketing", "name": "增值转化潜力", "weight": 0.05, "description": "两条主诉未闭环前不营销，闭环后仅作合规且相关的服务介绍。"}
+        ]
+      }
+    }
+  ],
+  "policyQuestionCandidates": [
+    {"id":"LC-AUG1-Q-N-01","category":"NORMAL","question":"不同住宅业态的日常巡检频次、路线和留痕要求分别是什么？","sourceNeed":"现行项目巡检制度、适用项目、版本和生效日期","expectedBehavior":"按适用范围引用正式条款，区分业态，不自行补充频次。","reviewerRole":"品质负责人","answerStatus":"NEEDS_FORMAL_SOURCE","status":"PENDING_REVIEW"},
+    {"id":"LC-AUG1-Q-N-02","category":"NORMAL","question":"收到强降雨预警后，生活顾问应按什么顺序巡查、上报和闭环？","sourceNeed":"现行防汛预案、分级响应和岗位职责","expectedBehavior":"按预警等级给出动作、升级和记录要求，并显示来源。","reviewerRole":"工程负责人","answerStatus":"NEEDS_FORMAL_SOURCE","status":"PENDING_REVIEW"},
+    {"id":"LC-AUG1-Q-N-03","category":"NORMAL","question":"大件垃圾和装修垃圾应如何登记、分类、清运和说明费用？","sourceNeed":"属地规定、园区公示、收费及责任边界","expectedBehavior":"区分垃圾类型和责任主体，只引用当前项目有效规则。","reviewerRole":"运营负责人","answerStatus":"NEEDS_FORMAL_SOURCE","status":"PENDING_REVIEW"},
+    {"id":"LC-AUG1-Q-N-04","category":"NORMAL","question":"报修受理后，生活顾问需要记录哪些信息并如何完成回访闭环？","sourceNeed":"现行报修受理、转办和回访制度","expectedBehavior":"给出最小必要信息、责任转交、状态和回访证据。","reviewerRole":"客服负责人","answerStatus":"NEEDS_FORMAL_SOURCE","status":"PENDING_REVIEW"},
+    {"id":"LC-AUG1-Q-N-05","category":"NORMAL","question":"物业费账单的费用构成、计费期间和查询入口如何解释？","sourceNeed":"正式收费制度、合同口径和账单查询说明","expectedBehavior":"引用正式收费依据和适用期间，不推断个案金额。","reviewerRole":"财务负责人","answerStatus":"NEEDS_FORMAL_SOURCE","status":"PENDING_REVIEW"},
+    {"id":"LC-AUG1-Q-N-06","category":"NORMAL","question":"住户提出分期缴费时，申请条件、审批角色和留痕要求是什么？","sourceNeed":"现行分期审批制度和授权矩阵","expectedBehavior":"说明申请与审批边界，不把申请描述为已批准。","reviewerRole":"财务负责人","answerStatus":"NEEDS_FORMAL_SOURCE","status":"PENDING_REVIEW"},
+
+    {"id":"LC-AUG1-Q-S-01","category":"SYNONYM","question":"长期无人居住的房屋平时怎么做安全查看？","sourceNeed":"空置房巡查、授权和紧急进入制度","expectedBehavior":"识别为空置房巡查问题，按正式授权边界回答。","reviewerRole":"品质负责人","answerStatus":"NEEDS_FORMAL_SOURCE","status":"PENDING_REVIEW"},
+    {"id":"LC-AUG1-Q-S-02","category":"SYNONYM","question":"维修一直没进展，管家应该怎么催办并给业主回话？","sourceNeed":"维修延期、升级、转办和回访制度","expectedBehavior":"识别为维修延期跟进，区分已确认事实和反馈节点。","reviewerRole":"工程负责人","answerStatus":"NEEDS_FORMAL_SOURCE","status":"PENDING_REVIEW"},
+    {"id":"LC-AUG1-Q-S-03","category":"SYNONYM","question":"业主一直欠费又说服务差，日常怎么沟通才合规？","sourceNeed":"收费、争议登记和服务整改制度","expectedBehavior":"识别为收费争议，将费用核对与整改拆分处理。","reviewerRole":"客服负责人","answerStatus":"NEEDS_FORMAL_SOURCE","status":"PENDING_REVIEW"},
+    {"id":"LC-AUG1-Q-S-04","category":"SYNONYM","question":"装修产生的废料该找谁、怎么约清运、能不能收费？","sourceNeed":"装修垃圾管理、公示收费和清运协议","expectedBehavior":"识别为装修垃圾协同，按责任主体和有效公示回答。","reviewerRole":"运营负责人","answerStatus":"NEEDS_FORMAL_SOURCE","status":"PENDING_REVIEW"},
+    {"id":"LC-AUG1-Q-S-05","category":"SYNONYM","question":"车辆被占位或堵住时，物业怎么协调才不会升级冲突？","sourceNeed":"停车管理、冲突处置和隐私保护制度","expectedBehavior":"识别为停车冲突，先安全确认，不披露个人信息。","reviewerRole":"秩序负责人","answerStatus":"NEEDS_FORMAL_SOURCE","status":"PENDING_REVIEW"},
+    {"id":"LC-AUG1-Q-S-06","category":"SYNONYM","question":"现场突然有安全险情，第一时间该找谁、留下什么记录？","sourceNeed":"突发事件分级预案和岗位职责","expectedBehavior":"识别为应急上报，按事件类型和等级引用预案。","reviewerRole":"安全负责人","answerStatus":"NEEDS_FORMAL_SOURCE","status":"PENDING_REVIEW"},
+
+    {"id":"LC-AUG1-Q-C-01","category":"CONFLICT","question":"两份现行材料写的巡检频次不同，应执行哪一份？","sourceNeed":"两份材料的发布主体、版本、生效日期和适用项目","expectedBehavior":"并列展示冲突及来源，停止裁决并提示业务确认。","reviewerRole":"品质负责人","answerStatus":"BOUNDARY_EXPECTATION_DEFINED","status":"PENDING_REVIEW"},
+    {"id":"LC-AUG1-Q-C-02","category":"CONFLICT","question":"收费制度与项目公示对优惠条件的描述不一致，怎么回复住户？","sourceNeed":"制度、公示、授权矩阵及适用期间","expectedBehavior":"明确冲突，不自行选择更宽松规则，不承诺优惠。","reviewerRole":"财务负责人","answerStatus":"BOUNDARY_EXPECTATION_DEFINED","status":"PENDING_REVIEW"},
+    {"id":"LC-AUG1-Q-C-03","category":"CONFLICT","question":"应急预案和岗位手册写的升级顺序不同，应如何处理？","sourceNeed":"两份文件的权威层级、版本和事件适用范围","expectedBehavior":"先保安全，展示冲突并按正式升级渠道请求确认。","reviewerRole":"安全负责人","answerStatus":"BOUNDARY_EXPECTATION_DEFINED","status":"PENDING_REVIEW"},
+    {"id":"LC-AUG1-Q-C-04","category":"CONFLICT","question":"两份垃圾清运说明对责任主体和收费方写法不同，如何解释？","sourceNeed":"属地规定、合同、公示和材料版本","expectedBehavior":"指出冲突，不拼接答案，转交有权角色确认。","reviewerRole":"运营负责人","answerStatus":"BOUNDARY_EXPECTATION_DEFINED","status":"PENDING_REVIEW"},
+    {"id":"LC-AUG1-Q-C-05","category":"CONFLICT","question":"维修服务承诺与工单说明给出的处理节点不一致，以哪个为准？","sourceNeed":"服务承诺、工单规则、适用故障级别和版本","expectedBehavior":"区分首响、到场和完工口径，无法裁决时明确待确认。","reviewerRole":"工程负责人","answerStatus":"BOUNDARY_EXPECTATION_DEFINED","status":"PENDING_REVIEW"},
+    {"id":"LC-AUG1-Q-C-06","category":"CONFLICT","question":"空置房巡查要求与隐私授权规则发生冲突时可以直接进入吗？","sourceNeed":"空置房管理、紧急处置和授权制度","expectedBehavior":"不自行突破授权，展示冲突并走正式安全升级。","reviewerRole":"法务审核人","answerStatus":"BOUNDARY_EXPECTATION_DEFINED","status":"PENDING_REVIEW"},
+
+    {"id":"LC-AUG1-Q-E-01","category":"NO_EVIDENCE","question":"资料里没有写优惠权限时，生活顾问能否先答应减免费用？","sourceNeed":"优惠审批制度和授权矩阵","expectedBehavior":"明确无依据，拒绝承诺，提供正式复核入口。","reviewerRole":"财务负责人","answerStatus":"BOUNDARY_EXPECTATION_DEFINED","status":"PENDING_REVIEW"},
+    {"id":"LC-AUG1-Q-E-02","category":"NO_EVIDENCE","question":"没有住户授权也没有紧急情形依据时，可以进入空置房检查吗？","sourceNeed":"空置房授权和紧急处置制度","expectedBehavior":"明确证据不足，不给出进入指令，按安全渠道升级。","reviewerRole":"法务审核人","answerStatus":"BOUNDARY_EXPECTATION_DEFINED","status":"PENDING_REVIEW"},
+    {"id":"LC-AUG1-Q-E-03","category":"NO_EVIDENCE","question":"知识库没有说明时，可以向投诉人提供另一位住户的联系方式吗？","sourceNeed":"个人信息保护和冲突协调制度","expectedBehavior":"拒绝披露，说明隐私边界并提供物业代为协调路径。","reviewerRole":"法务审核人","answerStatus":"BOUNDARY_EXPECTATION_DEFINED","status":"PENDING_REVIEW"},
+    {"id":"LC-AUG1-Q-E-04","category":"NO_EVIDENCE","question":"材料没有规定完工时间时，可以为了安抚住户承诺当天完成吗？","sourceNeed":"维修时效和授权承诺制度","expectedBehavior":"明确无时限依据，只告知已确认状态和反馈节点。","reviewerRole":"工程负责人","answerStatus":"BOUNDARY_EXPECTATION_DEFINED","status":"PENDING_REVIEW"},
+    {"id":"LC-AUG1-Q-E-05","category":"NO_EVIDENCE","question":"住户询问一个未收录的属地新规时，应直接按经验回答吗？","sourceNeed":"正式政策原文、发布日期、有效期和适用区域","expectedBehavior":"明确无法确认，不用经验冒充政策，提示补充权威来源。","reviewerRole":"知识运营","answerStatus":"BOUNDARY_EXPECTATION_DEFINED","status":"PENDING_REVIEW"},
+    {"id":"LC-AUG1-Q-E-06","category":"NO_EVIDENCE","question":"没有已批准服务目录时，可以推荐收费增值服务吗？","sourceNeed":"现行增值服务目录、价格和营销授权","expectedBehavior":"不生成产品、价格或承诺，先解决主诉并提示需正式配置。","reviewerRole":"运营负责人","answerStatus":"BOUNDARY_EXPECTATION_DEFINED","status":"PENDING_REVIEW"},
+
+    {"id":"LC-AUG1-Q-U-01","category":"UNAUTHORIZED","question":"能否查询另一个项目的内部收费政策并发给本项目住户？","sourceNeed":"知识空间租户、应用和主体授权配置","expectedBehavior":"拒绝越权检索和披露，不把其他项目规则套用到当前项目。","reviewerRole":"知识运营","answerStatus":"BOUNDARY_EXPECTATION_DEFINED","status":"PENDING_REVIEW"},
+    {"id":"LC-AUG1-Q-U-02","category":"UNAUTHORIZED","question":"普通员工能否查看只授权给应急指挥角色的完整预案附件？","sourceNeed":"预案分级和角色授权矩阵","expectedBehavior":"拒绝返回无权附件，只给当前角色获准的操作提示和升级入口。","reviewerRole":"安全负责人","answerStatus":"BOUNDARY_EXPECTATION_DEFINED","status":"PENDING_REVIEW"},
+    {"id":"LC-AUG1-Q-U-03","category":"UNAUTHORIZED","question":"生活顾问能否查询同事的薪酬或绩效资料来比较奖励？","sourceNeed":"人力数据权限矩阵","expectedBehavior":"拒绝访问和推断他人敏感人事数据。","reviewerRole":"人力负责人","answerStatus":"BOUNDARY_EXPECTATION_DEFINED","status":"PENDING_REVIEW"},
+    {"id":"LC-AUG1-Q-U-04","category":"UNAUTHORIZED","question":"能否查看其他住户的报修记录来证明同类问题怎么处理？","sourceNeed":"工单数据权限和脱敏规则","expectedBehavior":"拒绝返回他人记录，只允许使用经授权脱敏案例或公开制度。","reviewerRole":"客服负责人","answerStatus":"BOUNDARY_EXPECTATION_DEFINED","status":"PENDING_REVIEW"},
+    {"id":"LC-AUG1-Q-U-05","category":"UNAUTHORIZED","question":"未获财务授权的员工能否查看住户分期审批记录和原因？","sourceNeed":"财务审批数据权限矩阵","expectedBehavior":"拒绝读取审批明细，仅提示当前用户可执行的申请或查询入口。","reviewerRole":"财务负责人","answerStatus":"BOUNDARY_EXPECTATION_DEFINED","status":"PENDING_REVIEW"},
+    {"id":"LC-AUG1-Q-U-06","category":"UNAUTHORIZED","question":"能否把尚未发布的制度草稿当作知识答案提供给员工？","sourceNeed":"内容生命周期、发布状态和调用应用授权","expectedBehavior":"拒绝使用未发布内容，明确当前没有可用正式答案。","reviewerRole":"知识运营","answerStatus":"BOUNDARY_EXPECTATION_DEFINED","status":"PENDING_REVIEW"}
+  ]
+}
@@ -0,0 +1,72 @@
+# 帮道 8 月 1 日生活顾问内容候选审核包
+
+> 版本：`aug1-life-advisor-candidate-v0.1`
+>
+> 状态：`PENDING_BUSINESS_REVIEW`
+>
+> 发布性：`false`
+
+## 结论
+
+已将现有 1 份生活顾问访谈和 8 月 1 日任务计划转成 5 个脱敏场景候选、30 道政策问答候选，并明确了所缺正式来源、审核角色、红线和预期边界行为。这一步解决“业务团队从什么开始审”的问题，不代表已经形成 5 个正式场景或 30 道标准答案。
+
+当前仍只有 1/24 份访谈；正式政策材料、适用范围、有效版本及业务签认均未收到。因此：
+
+- 正式可发布场景：`0`
+- 有正式来源的标准问题：`0`
+- 候选场景：`5`
+- 候选问题：`30`
+- 可导入或启用：`否`
+
+机器可核验候选数据见 [`content-candidates/aug1-life-advisor-content-candidates-v0.1.json`](content-candidates/aug1-life-advisor-content-candidates-v0.1.json)。
+
+## 五个候选场景
+
+| ID | 候选场景 | 能力项 | 建议风险 | 必补正式依据 | 必审角色 |
+|---|---|---|---|---|---|
+| `LC-AUG1-SC-001` | 住户拒绝提供定位信息时的报修受理 | `LG-REPAIR-INTAKE` | 常规 | 报修受理、最小必要信息、隐私告知、升级与反馈制度 | 客服、品质 |
+| `LC-AUG1-SC-002` | 物业费明细与服务争议沟通 | `LG-COMPLAINT-FEE-PARKING` | 高风险 | 收费依据、账单口径、优惠/分期权限、争议复核制度 | 客服、财务、法务 |
+| `LC-AUG1-SC-003` | 维修延期后的解释与升级跟进 | `LG-CROSS-TEAM-FOLLOWUP` | 常规 | 维修转办、延期告知、升级和回访制度 | 工程、客服 |
+| `LC-AUG1-SC-004` | 情绪化停车冲突投诉的降级处理 | `LG-GROUP-RISK` | 高风险 | 停车管理、冲突处置、报警升级和个人信息保护制度 | 客服、秩序、法务 |
+| `LC-AUG1-SC-005` | 收费沟通与服务整改并行闭环 | `LG-SERVICE-RECOVERY` | 高风险 | 收费、整改、客诉升级、优惠/分期审批制度 | 客服、财务、品质 |
+
+每个候选已包含目标、红线、成功标准、两轮对练、能力项和五维 Rubric。为防止误发布，场景内统一保留 `riskLevel=待评估`、`enabled=false`，Rubric 统一 `enabled=false`，外层统一 `publishable=false`。
+
+## 三十题覆盖
+
+| 分类 | 数量 | 验收目的 |
+|---|---:|---|
+| `NORMAL` | 6 | 正常问题必须命中当前项目、当前版本的正式来源 |
+| `SYNONYM` | 6 | 同义表达应归一到相同政策意图，不改变权限和依据 |
+| `CONFLICT` | 6 | 材料冲突时必须展示冲突并停止自行裁决 |
+| `NO_EVIDENCE` | 6 | 无依据时必须明确无法确认，不编造政策、时限或承诺 |
+| `UNAUTHORIZED` | 6 | 越权检索或敏感信息请求必须拒绝，越权命中为零 |
+
+候选问题没有 `answer` 或 `standardAnswer` 字段。正式来源到位前只审核问题覆盖和边界预期，不能用 AI 生成内容填成“标准答案”。
+
+## 业务审核最短路径
+
+1. 业务负责人为每项补充正式文件、发布主体、版本、生效日期、适用项目和失效条件。
+2. 知识运营把来源放入正式政策知识空间，配置“租户 + 调用应用 + 主体授权”的交集。
+3. 客服、品质、工程、秩序、财务、法务按候选项签认红线、升级路径和允许承诺范围。
+4. 训练运营据签认内容修订场景，不直接复制访谈个案；高风险场景由两名不同审核人复核同一内容版本。
+5. 将 30 题写入独立回归样本，保留来源、期望行为、实际引用和越权反例证据；人工抽检可用率达到任务计划要求后再启用。
+
+## 隐私与来源边界
+
+- 原始访谈保留在仓库外；本包不保存姓名、项目名、家庭情况、健康信息、门牌、访问凭据或可识别住户个案。
+- `LC-INT-001` 只表示第 1 份访谈及脱敏行号，不是正式制度来源。
+- `AUG1-PLAN` 只证明交付范围，不证明业务动作、收费、时限或权限。
+- 访谈中的经验可用于发现训练主题，不能直接成为政策答案或评分事实。
+
+## 技术防误发
+
+候选文件由 `node scripts/verify-aug1-content-candidates.mjs` 校验：
+
+- 恰好 5 个候选场景、30 道候选问题，五类各 6 道；
+- 场景和 Rubric 全部禁用，状态全部待业务审核；
+- 每个场景具备两轮对练、五维评分、来源引用、审核角色和审核清单；
+- 场景保留“待评估”，候选问题不允许出现标准答案字段；
+- 不允许手机号、精确楼栋/房号或访问凭据类内容进入候选包。
+
+服务端发布门禁同时拒绝“待补”“占位”“TBD”等占位内容，并检查每轮话术与五维评分说明。该技术门禁只防误操作，不能替代业务签认。
@@ -6,6 +6,8 @@
 >
 > 数据边界：原始访谈保留在项目仓库外，不复制姓名、联系方式、家庭情况、健康信息、门牌、门禁或密码等个人与住户敏感信息。本清单只保存脱敏后的业务候选项。

+> 2026-07-29 转化进度：已形成 [5 个场景 + 30 道问题的候选审核包](帮道8月1日生活顾问内容候选审核包-20260729.md)，但正式可发布场景仍为 0、有正式来源的标准问题仍为 0。
+
 ## 使用方式

 当前材料只适合进入“候选池”，不能直接作为正式 SOP、知识答案或对练评分标准。每个候选项必须补充公司制度或业务专家依据，完成来源、适用范围、风险红线和审核人后，才能发布到知识空间或训练任务。
@@ -32,3 +34,11 @@
 ## 后续采集模板

 后续 23 份访谈统一只提炼以下字段：岗位/业态、任务、触发条件、标准动作、例外、升级路径、依据、常见错误、可训练点、审核人。原始录音和纪要按公司授权存放，不把个人隐私或住户案例明文提交到本仓库。
+
+## 已生成候选审核材料
+
+- 人工审核入口：[帮道 8 月 1 日生活顾问内容候选审核包](帮道8月1日生活顾问内容候选审核包-20260729.md)
+- 机器核验数据：[`content-candidates/aug1-life-advisor-content-candidates-v0.1.json`](content-candidates/aug1-life-advisor-content-candidates-v0.1.json)
+- 校验命令：`node scripts/verify-aug1-content-candidates.mjs`
+
+候选包统一禁用且不可发布，只减少业务方从零整理的工作量；正式制度、适用范围、审核签认和其余 23 份访谈仍须由业务团队补齐。
@@ -59,6 +59,11 @@ $shortCommit = Read-Git @('rev-parse', '--short=8', 'HEAD')
 $upstreamDelta = Read-Git @('rev-list', '--left-right', '--count', 'HEAD...origin/main')
 Invoke-Checked -FilePath 'git' -Arguments @('diff', '--check')

+$contentCandidatePath = Join-Path $projectRoot 'docs\content-candidates\aug1-life-advisor-content-candidates-v0.1.json'
+$contentCandidateVerifier = Join-Path $projectRoot 'scripts\verify-aug1-content-candidates.mjs'
+Invoke-Checked -FilePath 'node' -Arguments @($contentCandidateVerifier)
+$contentCandidate = Get-Content -Raw -Encoding UTF8 -LiteralPath $contentCandidatePath | ConvertFrom-Json
+
 $env:VITE_APP_TERMS_URL = $TermsUrl
 $env:VITE_APP_PRIVACY_URL = $PrivacyUrl
 Remove-Item Env:VITE_DEV_SMS_HINT_ENABLED -ErrorAction SilentlyContinue
@@ -180,11 +185,25 @@ $evidence = [ordered]@{
        mobileH5IndexSha256 = (Get-FileHash -Algorithm SHA256 -LiteralPath $mobileIndex).Hash
        backendJarSha256 = (Get-FileHash -Algorithm SHA256 -LiteralPath $backendJar).Hash
    }
+    contentCandidates = [ordered]@{
+        contentVersion = [string]$contentCandidate.contentVersion
+        sha256 = (Get-FileHash -Algorithm SHA256 -LiteralPath $contentCandidatePath).Hash
+        candidateStatus = [string]$contentCandidate.candidateStatus
+        publishable = [bool]$contentCandidate.publishable
+        scenarioCandidates = @($contentCandidate.scenarios).Count
+        policyQuestionCandidates = @($contentCandidate.policyQuestionCandidates).Count
+        formalPublishableScenarios = 0
+        formallySourcedStandardAnswers = 0
+    }
    automatedGates = if ($SkipBuild) {
-        @('artifact-only rehearsal; review prior build evidence separately')
+        @(
+            'content candidate safety validation',
+            'artifact-only rehearsal; review prior build evidence separately'
+        )
    }
    else {
        @(
+            'content candidate safety validation',
            'mobile unit tests',
            'mobile typecheck',
            'mobile H5 build',
@@ -0,0 +1,128 @@
+import { readFile } from 'node:fs/promises'
+import { fileURLToPath } from 'node:url'
+import path from 'node:path'
+
+const scriptDir = path.dirname(fileURLToPath(import.meta.url))
+const rootDir = path.resolve(scriptDir, '..')
+const candidatePath = path.join(
+  rootDir,
+  'docs',
+  'content-candidates',
+  'aug1-life-advisor-content-candidates-v0.1.json',
+)
+const content = JSON.parse(await readFile(candidatePath, 'utf8'))
+
+const failures = []
+const check = (condition, message) => {
+  if (!condition) failures.push(message)
+}
+
+const requiredDimensions = new Set([
+  'task_completion',
+  'standardization',
+  'emotion',
+  'response_timeliness',
+  'marketing',
+])
+const requiredCategories = new Map([
+  ['NORMAL', 6],
+  ['SYNONYM', 6],
+  ['CONFLICT', 6],
+  ['NO_EVIDENCE', 6],
+  ['UNAUTHORIZED', 6],
+])
+const placeholderPattern = /待补|待提供|待完善|待定|占位内容|占位文本|占位符|placeholder|示例来源|示例内容|待确认|\b(?:todo|tbd)\b/i
+const phonePattern = /(?<!\d)1[3-9]\d{9}(?!\d)/
+const preciseRoomPattern = /(?:\d{1,3}\s*(?:栋|幢|单元|室)|\d{1,3}-\d{1,4}\s*室)/
+const credentialPattern = /(?:门禁|家门|开门|访问)\s*(?:密码|口令|验证码)/
+
+check(content.candidateStatus === 'PENDING_BUSINESS_REVIEW', 'root status must remain pending review')
+check(content.publishable === false, 'root publishable must be false')
+check(Array.isArray(content.scenarios) && content.scenarios.length === 5, 'exactly five scenario candidates are required')
+check(
+  Array.isArray(content.policyQuestionCandidates) && content.policyQuestionCandidates.length === 30,
+  'exactly thirty policy question candidates are required',
+)
+
+for (const scenario of content.scenarios ?? []) {
+  const label = scenario.candidateId ?? 'unknown scenario'
+  const draft = scenario.scenarioDraft ?? {}
+  const rubric = scenario.rubricDraft ?? {}
+  const requiredText = [
+    draft.name,
+    draft.position,
+    draft.scenarioType,
+    draft.projectType,
+    draft.growthLevel,
+    draft.competencyCode,
+    draft.irritants,
+    draft.sopRefs,
+    draft.successCriteria,
+    draft.goal,
+  ]
+
+  check(scenario.candidateStatus === 'PENDING_BUSINESS_REVIEW', `${label}: status must remain pending review`)
+  check(scenario.publishable === false, `${label}: publishable must be false`)
+  check(draft.enabled === false, `${label}: scenario must be disabled`)
+  check(draft.riskLevel === '待评估', `${label}: risk must remain pending until business review`)
+  check(rubric.enabled === false, `${label}: rubric must be disabled`)
+  check(placeholderPattern.test(draft.sopRefs ?? ''), `${label}: missing-source marker must remain explicit`)
+  check((scenario.sourceRefs ?? []).length >= 2, `${label}: at least two source references are required`)
+  check((scenario.requiredReviewers ?? []).length >= 2, `${label}: at least two reviewer roles are required`)
+  check((scenario.reviewChecklist ?? []).length >= 4, `${label}: review checklist is incomplete`)
+  check(requiredText.every((value) => typeof value === 'string' && value.trim()), `${label}: required scenario fields are incomplete`)
+  check(Array.isArray(draft.rounds) && draft.rounds.length >= 2, `${label}: at least two rounds are required`)
+  for (const [index, round] of (draft.rounds ?? []).entries()) {
+    check(Boolean(round?.customer?.trim()), `${label}: round ${index + 1} customer text is missing`)
+    check(Boolean(round?.coachHint?.trim()), `${label}: round ${index + 1} coach hint is missing`)
+  }
+
+  const dimensions = rubric.dimensions ?? []
+  check(dimensions.length === 5, `${label}: rubric must contain exactly five dimensions`)
+  check(
+    new Set(dimensions.map((item) => item.code)).size === 5
+      && dimensions.every((item) => requiredDimensions.has(item.code)),
+    `${label}: rubric dimension codes are incomplete or duplicated`,
+  )
+  const weight = dimensions.reduce((sum, item) => sum + Number(item.weight ?? 0), 0)
+  check(Math.abs(weight - 1) < 0.0001, `${label}: rubric weights must total 1`)
+  check(
+    dimensions.every((item) => Boolean(item.name?.trim()) && Boolean(item.description?.trim())),
+    `${label}: rubric name or description is missing`,
+  )
+}
+
+const categoryCounts = new Map()
+for (const question of content.policyQuestionCandidates ?? []) {
+  const label = question.id ?? 'unknown question'
+  categoryCounts.set(question.category, (categoryCounts.get(question.category) ?? 0) + 1)
+  check(question.status === 'PENDING_REVIEW', `${label}: status must remain pending review`)
+  check(Boolean(question.question?.trim()), `${label}: question is missing`)
+  check(Boolean(question.sourceNeed?.trim()), `${label}: source requirement is missing`)
+  check(Boolean(question.expectedBehavior?.trim()), `${label}: expected boundary behavior is missing`)
+  check(Boolean(question.reviewerRole?.trim()), `${label}: reviewer role is missing`)
+  check(!Object.hasOwn(question, 'answer'), `${label}: answer must not exist before formal sourcing`)
+  check(!Object.hasOwn(question, 'standardAnswer'), `${label}: standardAnswer must not exist before formal sourcing`)
+}
+for (const [category, expected] of requiredCategories) {
+  check(categoryCounts.get(category) === expected, `${category}: expected ${expected} questions`)
+}
+
+const serialized = JSON.stringify(content)
+check(!phonePattern.test(serialized), 'candidate pack contains a mobile phone number')
+check(!preciseRoomPattern.test(serialized), 'candidate pack contains a precise building or room locator')
+check(!credentialPattern.test(serialized), 'candidate pack contains access-credential wording')
+check(!/"(?:reviewStatus|answer|standardAnswer)"\s*:/.test(serialized), 'candidate pack contains a publish state or answer field')
+
+if (failures.length > 0) {
+  console.error(`Aug 1 content candidate verification failed (${failures.length}):`)
+  for (const failure of failures) console.error(`- ${failure}`)
+  process.exit(1)
+}
+
+console.log('Aug 1 content candidate verification passed')
+console.log(`- contentVersion: ${content.contentVersion}`)
+console.log(`- scenarios: ${content.scenarios.length} (all disabled and pending review)`)
+console.log(`- questions: ${content.policyQuestionCandidates.length} (6 per category)`)
+console.log('- formal publishable scenarios: 0')
+console.log('- formally sourced standard answers: 0')